May • Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi TAXON 66 (2) • April 2017: 496–499

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 21 – Lists from working groups

Tom W. May Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, 100 Birdwood Avenue, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia; [email protected] DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/662.16 Summary Six lists of names from working groups set up under Art. 14.13 are approved, consisting of 3 names of families, 43 names of genera and 5 names of species, to be treated as conserved against the listed synonymous or homonymous names. Lists were compiled by working groups approved by the International Commission on the of Fungi and the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: on Cordyceps, Diaporthales, Dothideomycetes, Hypocreales, , and Trichoderma and Hypocrea. Issues around interpretation of Art. 14.13 and 56.3 and implementation of Art. 57.2 are discussed.

Lists of names from working groups the same process has been followed in respect of the lists, except that the lists have not been published in Taxon (see below). In relation to This report concerns the lists from working groups set up under establishment of the subcommittees, Art. 14.13 and 56.3 state that lists Art. 14.13 to deal en bloc with names of fungi considered to require con- are created first, then referred via the NCFung to the subcommittees. servation. For details of Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCFung) In reality, the subcommittees were approved and then the lists that membership during the period when these lists have been considered, they compiled were considered. see Report of the NCFung 20 (in Taxon 66: 483–495. 2017). Vote counts The working groups referred to as “subcommittees” in Art. 14.13 for approval of working groups and of lists are given, in order, as: votes and 56.3 are established by the NCFung “in consultation with the Gen- for – votes against – abstentions. The percentage of Yes votes is calcu- eral Committee and appropriate international bodies”. The appropriate lated from the total membership at the time of the ballot, which was 20 international body to consult is clearly the International Commission for approval of the working groups and 18 for approval of the lists. Work- on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF; http://www.fungaltaxonomy.org/). ing groups and lists were approved when the Yes vote was at least 60%. The ICTF is a COMCOF (Committees, Commissions and Federations) Two articles were introduced in the Melbourne International Code of the International Union of Microbiological Sciences (IUMS) and of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants that provide for compi- the International Mycological Association (IMA). The ICTF has a lation of “lists of names” that “become Appendices of the Code once membership of 25, representing all continents, and works closely with reviewed and approved by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi and the NCFung. The ICTF and NCFung currently have three members the General Committee”. Article 14.13 deals with names that are “treated in common (Tom May, Scott Redhead, Marco Thines), including as conserved” and Art. 56.3 with names that are “treated as rejected”. the current Chair (Redhead) and Secretary (May) of the NCFung. In The two new articles were introduced in connection with changes to addition, David Hawksworth is a member of the ICTF and the GC. Art. 59 that removed the facility to legitimately name each of the dif- Implementation of working groups commenced at the “One ferent morphs of a single species for pleomorphic ascomycetous and = Which Name?” symposium, organised by the CBS Fungal basidiomycetous fungi. The two new articles cover “organisms treated Biodiversity Centre in Amsterdam, 12–13 April 2012, and attended as fungi” including lichenicolous fungi, but exclude “lichen-forming by 155 mycologists from 29 countries. The symposium was attended fungi and those fungi traditionally associated with them taxonomi- by NCFung Chair (Scott Redhead) and the then Secretary (Lorelei cally”. Lists were introduced to facilitate the transition to “one fungus Norvell) as well as ICTF current Chair (Keith Seifert), incoming : one name” which was considered likely to involve numerous choices Chair (Conrad Schoch) and Secretary (Andrew Miller), along with between different names based on anamorphic (asexual) and teleomor- David Hawksworth (GC, ICTF). Reports were presented on progress phic (sexual) morphs of the same fungus (although the use of lists is not and issues for working groups on Basidiomycota, Dothideomycetes, limited to this situation). The examination of lists of names proposed Eurotiomycetes, Sordariomycetes (for which it was noted that several to be treated as conserved or rejected under the two new articles is an subgroups would be required) and Medical mycology (Hawksworth addition to the established processes under Art. 14.1 and 56.1 that deal in IMA Fungus 3: (10)–(16). 2012a). The ICTF was recognised as with individual names proposed for conservation or rejection. the body responsible for coordination of working groups, through The procedures used to approve the subcommittees (generally their formal subcommissions and newly established groups; with referred to as “working groups”) and examine the lists produced have the NCFung and the GC (and eventually the Nomenclature Section) not matched the sequence set out in Art. 14.13 and 56.3, which state that having ultimate responsibility for decisions about the names on the lists are to be “submitted to the General Committee, which will refer lists (Hawksworth, l.c. 2012a; Seifert & Miller in IMA Fungus 3: them to the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi … for examination (17)–(18). 2012). Guidance to working groups in compiling lists of by subcommittees established by that Committee in consultation with names was provided by Hawksworth (in IMA Fungus 3: 15–24. 2012b). the General Committee and appropriate international bodies”. Never- The ICTF has set up 21 international working groups (http://www. theless, the NCFung has followed the intent of the Articles, guided by fungaltaxonomy.org/subcommissions/), formally approved at their established practice in dealing with individual proposals. In relation meetings of 23 April 2015, 28 January 2016 and 6 March 2017. Some of to submission of lists, current practice for individual proposals is these groups are existing subcommissions of the ICTF, some are affili- that publication of proposals in Taxon triggers consideration by the ated commissions and some are de novo working groups, not necessarily committees for the various taxonomic groups (such as the NCFung). intended to be permanent. Full membership of each group is indicated Furthermore, it is publication of the reports of these committees that on the ICTF website (http://www.fungaltaxonomy.org/ictf-members/); transmits their decisions to the General Committee (GC). Therefore, see also individual publications of the groups (listed below).

496 Version of Record This Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi is published in parallel in IMA Fungus 8(1). TAXON 66 (2) • April 2017: 496–499 May • Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi

The NCFung formally approved 20 of the 21 ICTF working groups in IMA Fungus 6: 145–154. 2015), Dothideomycetes WG (Rossman under Art. 14.13 and 56.3 in several ballots during 2014 and 2016. The & al. in IMA Fungus 6: 507–523. 2015; replacing the earlier list of procedure adopted was to approve working groups if a 60% Yes vote Wijayawardene & al. in Fungal Diversity 69: 1–55. 2014), Hypocreales was achieved, and if not, to leave the matter there (without requiring a WG (Rossman & al. in IMA Fungus 4: 41–51. 2013), Leotiomycetes 60% No vote or holding further ballots). The ICTF Oomycetes working WG (Johnston & al. in IMA Fungus 5: 91–120. 2014) and International group was not approved by NCFung under Art. 14.13 and 56.3 because Subcommission on Trichoderma and Hypocrea (Bissett & al. in IMA this taxonomic group was not covered under the former Art. 59 (which Fungus 6: 263–295. 2015). Assistance provided by the chairs and con- dealt specifically with and Basidiomycota), and therefore veners of these six working groups (Priscila Chaverri, Pedro Crous, there were no “one fungus : one name” issues to resolve. Irina Druzhinina, Kevin Hyde, Peter Johnston, Amy Rossman, Joey The 20 international working groups approved by ICTF and Spatafora) and the ICTF (through their Chair and Secretary, Conrad NCFung at present are: (1) 5 subcommissions of the ICTF – Interna- Schoch and Andrew Miller) in coordinating production of the lists and tional Subcommission for the Taxonomy of Phytopathogenic Fungi collaborative liaison with NCFung is acknowledged. Where the chair (Co-chairs: Pedro Crous, Amy Rossman), International Subcommission of the working group was not among the authors of publications, the on Colletotrichum Taxonomy (Chair: Lee Cai), International Subcom- official nature of the list has been confirmed with the relevant working mission on Fusarium Taxonomy (Chair: David Geiser), International group (as for the International Subcommission on Trichoderma and Subcommission on Rust Taxonomy (Chair: M. Catherine Aime), Inter- Hypocrea). Further lists from other working groups have recently national Subcommission on Trichoderma and Hypocrea (Chair: Irina been published or are in preparation. Druzhinina), (2) the affiliated IUMS Commission – International Com- The six lists dealt with in this report specifically designate the mission on Penicillium and Aspergillus (ICPA) (Chair: Rob Samson), preferred name when there are choices of competing anamorph and and (3) 14 working groups (WGs) – Cordyceps WG (Convener: Joey teleomorph names for the one fungus, mostly at generic rank, but also Spatafora), Diaporthales WG (Convener: Amy Rossman), Dothideo- including choices at family and species rank. It should be noted that mycetes WG (Co-conveners: Pedro Crous, Kevin Hyde), Erysiphales the lists contain a mix of names that do and do not require formal WG (Convener: Uwe Braun), Heterobasidiomycetes WG (Convener: action. Where the older of competing synonyms has been chosen, no Dominik Begerow, see also International Subcommission on Rust Tax- formal action is required by the NCFung (except see “Article 57.2” onomy, above), Homobasidiomycetes WG (Co-conveners: Tom May, below). It is only when a more recent name has been recommended Scott Redhead), Hypocreales WG (Co-conveners: Amy Rossman, over an older synonymous name that formal approval is required from Priscila Chaverri), Leotiomycetes WG (Convener: Peter Johnston), the NCFung. Among cases requiring formal approval, only Art. 14.13 Medical Mycology WG (Convener: Sybren de Hoog), Miscellaneous is involved (to treat names “as conserved”) and no action under Art. fungi WG (Co-conveners: Conrad Schoch, Tom May), Orbiliomy- 56.3 (to treat names “as rejected”) has been proposed to date. cetes WG (Convener: Hans-O. Baral), Pyricularia /Magnaporthe WG It should be noted that some cases to conserve names arising from (Convener: Ning Zhang), Sordariomycetes excluding Diaporthales, “one fungus : one name” situations have been published as individual Hypocreales and Magnaporthales WG (Co-conveners: Amy Rossman, proposals under Art. 14.1. In fact, all recommendations for Erysiphales Andrew Miller) and Yeast WG (Co-conveners: Clete Kurtzman, Jack were published in this fashion (Braun in Taxon 62: 1328–1331. 2013) Fell, affiliated with IUMS International Commission on Yeasts). rather than submitted as a list; these proposals are dealt with in NCFung Introduction of the facility to submit names of fungi for conserva- Report 20. Other cases have been presented as individual proposals and tion or rejection en bloc via lists was motivated in the first place by the also included in the list from the relevant working group – specifically removal of dual nomenclature for fungi, as is clear from the Preface to four proposals for names in Trichoderma (Prop. 2305, 2306, 2308, the Code which specifically mentions the intention “to minimize con- 2309) and the choice of Bipolaris over Cochliobolus (Prop. 2233). For sequent nomenclatural disruption” from changes to Art. 59. However, such cases, the entries in the lists are approved below. How to deal with Hawksworth (l.c. 2012b) pointed out that in fact lists can cover any the individual proposals (such as by recommending to their authors fungus name (except for lichen-forming fungi). Kirk & al. (in IMA that they be withdrawn) awaits clarification of the practical difference Fungus 4: 381–443. 2013) published “A without-prejudice list of generic between “individual” conservation and inclusion in a list (see below). names of fungi for protection under the International Code of Nomen- The NCFung initially voted on the items in the six lists that clature …” that listed 6995 generic names “as a first step towards the required formal action, lumped together. Some members wished to production of a List of Protected Generic Names for Fungi”, noting vote on the set of items on each list separately, and therefore the lists that while the ICTF was coordinating working groups, “the rates of were re-presented in this way in NCFung ballot 2016-2. Situations progress have varied, and there are many orders and families with no under Art. 57.2 were held over (see below). As a result, the following working groups”. However, the “without-prejudice list” was not pro- names in bold are proposed to be treated “as conserved” under Art. duced by a formal working group of the ICTF. The NCFung formally 14.13 against the accompanying names. Names are listed by working voted on a “without-prejudice list” working group (whose membership groups. The publications of the individual working groups (as cited was taken to be the authors of the publication) but such a working group above) should be consulted for publication and typification details was not approved [vote: 25% for approval] because in the initial phase of the names, as well as details for all cases of the choice of name of implementation of Art. 14.13 and 56.3 the NCFung wished to focus adopted, including background information on relative usages. (S) on the “one fungus : one name” issues, and preparation of a list of all denotes names typified by sexual morphs (teleomorphs) and (A) genera in current use was considered to require more careful checking denotes names typified by asexual morphs (anamorphs). of citations and synonymy and wider consultation (see also below under Comprehensive lists of names for protection). List from Cordyceps WG This report deals with lists (as included in the cited publications) Votes: 14–1–3 (78% recommend approval of the list). from the following six working groups: Cordyceps WG (Quandt & al. Ophiocordyceps Petch 1931 (S) against Sorosporella Sorokin 1888 in IMA Fungus 5: 121–134. 2014), Diaporthales WG (Rossman & al. (A), Hirsutella Pat. 1892 (A), Didymobotryopsis Henn. 1902

Version of Record 497 May • Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi TAXON 66 (2) • April 2017: 496–499

(A), Mahevia Lagarde 1917 (A), Synnematium Speare 1920 (A), Ascocoryne J.W. Groves & D.E. Wilson 1967 (S) against Coryne Nees Trichosterigma Petch 1923 (A), Didymobotrys Clem. & Shear 1816 (A), Pirobasidium Höhn. 1902 (A), Pleurocolla Petr. 1924 1931 and (A) Hymenostilbe Petch 1931 (A) [The last two names (A) and Endostilbum Malençon 1964 (A). are included for the moment, pending confirmation of their Ascodichaena Butin 1977 (S) against Polymorphum Chevall. 1822 relative date of publication in relation to Ophiocordyceps Petch (A), Phloeoscoria Wallr. 1825 (A), Psilospora Rabenh. 1856 (A) 1931]. and Dichaenopsis Paoli 1905 (A). Blumeriella Arx 1961 (S) against Microgloeum Petr. 1922 (A) and List from Diaporthales WG Phloeosporella Höhn. 1924 (A). Votes: 16–0–2 (89% recommend approval of the list). Chlorociboria Seaver ex C.S. Ramamurthi & al. 1958 (S) against Amphiporthe Petr. 1971 (S) against Amphicytostroma Petr. 1921 (A). Dothiorina Höhn. 1911 (A). Apiognomonia Höhn. 1917 (S) against Discula Sacc. 1884 (A). Claussenomyces Kirschst. 1923 (S) against Dendrostilbella Höhn. Melanconis Tul. & C. Tul. 1863 (S) against Melanconium Link 1809 1905 (A). (A). Crumenulopsis J.W. Groves 1969 (S) against Digitosporium Grem- Pilidiella Petr. & Syd. 1927 (A) against Schizoparme Shear 1923 (S). men 1953 (A). Plagiostoma Fuckel 1870 (S) against Diplodina Westend. 1857 (A) Dematioscypha Svrček 1977 (S) against Schizocephalum Preuss 1852 and Septomyxa Sacc. 1854 (A). (A) and Haplographium Berk. & Broome 1859 (A). Dermea Fr. 1825 (S) against Sphaeronaema Fr. 1815 (A). List from Dothideomycetes WG Diplocarpon F.A. Wolf 1912 (S) against Entomosporium Lév. 1856 Votes: 14–1–3 (78% recommend approval of the list). Note that (A), Bostrichonema Ces. 1867 (A), Morthiera Fuckel 1870 (A) one member commented “I vote no on Gemmamyces over Megalosep- and Marssonina Magnus 1906 (A). toria. My yes applies to the rest.” Gloeotinia M. Wilson & al. 1954 (S) against Endoconidium Prill. & Acrogenospora M.B. Ellis 1971 (A) against Farlowiella Sacc. 1891 (S). Delacr. 1891 (A). Bipolaris Shoemaker 1959 (A) against Cochliobolus Drechsler 1934 Godronia Moug. & Lév. 1846 (S) against Sphaeronaema Fr. 1815 (A) (S). See also Prop. 2233 (Rossman & al. in Taxon 62: 1331–1332). and Topospora Fr. 1836 (A). Botryosphaeria Ces. & De Not. 1863 (S) against Fusicoccum Corda Godroniopsis Diehl & E.K. Cash 1929 (S) against Sphaeronaema 1829 (A). Fr. 1815 (A). Capnodium Mont. 1849 (S) against Polychaeton (Pers.) Lév. 1846 (A). Gremmeniella M. Morelet 1969 (S) against Brunchorstia Erikss. 1891 Elsinoë Racib. 1900 (S) against Sphaceloma de Bary 1874 (A). (A). Gemmamyces Casagr. 1969 (S) against Megaloseptoria Naumov 1925 Holwaya Sacc. 1889 (S) against Crinula Fr. 1821 (A). (A). Hypohelion P.R. Johnst. 1990 (S) against Leptostroma Fr. 1815 (A). Kirschsteiniothelia D. Hawksw. 1985 (S) against Dendryphiopsis Leptotrochila P. Karst. 1871 (S) against Sporonema Desm. 1847 (A). S. Hughes 1953 (A). Monilinia Honey 1928 (S) against Monilia Bonord. 1851 (A). Paranectriella (Henn. ex Sacc.) Höhn. 1910 (S) against Araneomyces Monochaetiellopsis B. Sutton & DiCosmo 1977 (A) against Hypno- Höhn. 1909 (A). theca Tommerup 1970 (S). Phaeosphaeria I. Miyake 1909 (S) against Phaeoseptoria Speg. 1908 Neofabraea H.S. Jacks. 1913 (S) against Phlyctema Desm. 1847 (A). (A). Pycnopeziza W.L. White & Whetzel 1938 (S) against Acarosporium Podonectria Petch 1921 (S) against Tetracrium Henn. 1902 (A). Bubák & Vleugel ex Bubák 1911 (A) and Chaetalysis Peyronel Venturia Sacc. 1882 (S) against Fusicladium Bonord. 1851 (A). 1922 (A). Pyrenopeziza Fuckel 1870 (S) against Cylindrosporium Grev. 1822 List from Hypocreales WG (A) Cylindrodochium Bonord. 1851 (A). Votes: 16–1–1 (89% recommend approval of the list). Rhabdocline Syd. 1922 (S) against Meria Vuill. 1896 (A), Hartigiella Bionectriaceae Samuels & Rossman 1999 (S) against Spicariaceae Syd. & P. Syd. 1900 (A) and Rhabdogloeum Syd. 1922 (A). Nann. 1934 (A). Hypocreaceae De Not. 1844 (S) against Trichodermataceae Fr. 1825 List from International Subcommission on Trichoderma (A). and Hypocrea Hypomyces (Fr.) Tul. & C. Tul. 1860 (S) against Sepedonium Link Votes: 16–1–1 (89% recommend approval of the list). 1809 (A), Mycogone Link 1809 (A), Cladobotryum Nees 1817 (A) Hypocrea pezizoides Berk. & Broome 1875 (S) against Trichoderma and Stephanoma Wallr. 1833 (A). pezizoideum Wallr. 1833 (A). Note: the two epithets are considered Nectria (Fr.) Fr. 1849 (S) against Tubercularia Tode 1790 (A). confusable. See also Prop. 2308 (Samuels in Taxon 63: 936–938). Nectriaceae Tul. & C. Tul. 1865 (S) against Tuberculariaceae Fr. Trichoderma catoptron P. Chaverri & Samuels 2004 (A) against 1825 (A). Hypocrea catoptron Berk. & Broome 1873 (S), H. sulfurella Neonectria Wollenw. 1917 (S) against Cylindrocarpon Wollenw. 1913 Kalchbr. & Cooke 1880 (S) and H. flavovirens Berk. 1884 (S). (A). See also Prop. 2305 (Samuels, l.c.). Sphaerostilbella (Henn.) Sacc. & D. Sacc. 1905 (S) against Gliocla- Trichoderma citrinoviride Bissett 1984 (A) against Sphaeria schwei­ dium Corda 1840 (A). nitzii Fr. 1828 (S), S. contorta Schwein. 1832 (S), Hypocrea repanda Fuckel 1871 (S) and H. minima Sacc. & Ellis 1882 (S). List from Leotiomycetes WG See also Prop. 2306 (Samuels, l.c.). Votes: 13–2–3 (72% recommend approval of the list). Trichoderma gelatinosum P. Chaverri & Samuels 2003 (A) against Ascocalyx Naumov 1926 (S) against Bothrodiscus Shear 1907 (A) and Sphaeria cupularis Fr. 1830 (S) and Hypocrea moriformis Cooke Pycnocalyx Zap. 1916 (A). & Massee 1888 (S).

498 Version of Record TAXON 66 (2) • April 2017: 496–499 May • Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi

Trichoderma reesei E.G. Simmons 1977 (A) against Hypocrea jeco- It is noted that some comprehensive lists have been published, rina Berk. & Broome 1873 (S). See also Prop. 2309 (Samuels, l.c.). such as for Penicillium (Visagie in Stud. Mycol. 78: 343–371. 2014), where it is unclear whether or not it is intended that all names be con- Article 14.13 specifies that, once approved, lists of names sidered under Art. 14.13, while in one case, for Trichoderma, authors of “become Appendices of the Code”. Given the novel nature of the a comprehensive list have explicitly stated that they “wish all names lists from working groups, the manner in which this is done will need published prior to 1 January 2013 and accepted here to be included in to be worked out. Names from lists could be integrated into existing the eventual list of protected names as soon as that is permitted by appendices, perhaps denoted as arising from lists rather than the the ICN” (Bissett & al., l.c.). At the moment, only those entries in lists individual proposals that led to other entries. The matter of whether or (from formally constituted working groups) that take up a later name not there is any practical difference for names from lists as compared over an earlier name have been selected for approval above, because to those from individual proposals will need clarification (see below) for other names, normal priority operates in any case (see also “Article and it also needs to be kept in mind that lists are not restricted to “one 57.2” below). However, it should be noted that Hawksworth (l.c. 2015) fungus : one name” situations (see below). has proposed to amend the Code so that names submitted via lists be protected not only from listed names but also from unlisted names, The difference between conserved and treated as conserved which will mean that formal approval of comprehensive lists would have additional practical consequences. Currently, it is not clear what is the practical difference between Some lists include citation of type material but not necessarily “individual” conservation under Art. 14.1 and inclusion in a list under with consistent indication of whether holotype, lectotype or neotype. Art. 14.13 leading to names being treated “as conserved”; and the How these type citations, which are of great importance for stabil- same for names rejected under Art. 56.1 and “treated as rejected” ity, should be presented when lists are formally adopted is another under Art. 56.3. Hawksworth (l.c. 2012a) recognised that there was area where further clarification is required. There is clearly a role potential for confusion, and, using the term “Accepted Lists” for lists for comprehensive and authoritative lists prepared by international from working groups, indicated that the difference between individual working groups, and implementation of such lists in conformity with conserved names (under Art. 14.1) and names dealt with in lists under the Code will be an important task for NCFung and ICTF once this Art. 14.13 is that “names included in the Lists of Conserved Names first phase of implementation of the transition to “one fungus : one [i.e., in the Code Appendices, arising from individual conservation] name” has been completed. … have precedence over those on the Accepted Lists”, and “names that are formally conserved cannot be deleted, whereas there is no Article 57.2 such restriction for names on the Accepted Lists”. Hawksworth (l.c. 2012b) further pointed out that it is not clear whether or not the lists Under the Code as it stands, formal action is required where an from working groups remain open, such as by addition or revision of earlier anamorph-typified name is chosen as the preferred name over names, an option which he favoured so as to “enable them to be added a later teleomorph-typified name. Article 57.2 requires a specific but to as detailed treatments of families and genera become available”. rather confusing action by the NCFung prior to taking up an earlier This latter point is more relevant to comprehensive lists (see below) anamorph-​typified name over a later synonymous teleomorph-typ- rather than the current phase of resolution of “one fungus : one name” ified name. That action is rejection by the NCFung of a proposal issues. Hawksworth (in Taxon 64: 858–862. 2015) introduced propos- (either individually or as part of a list) to (1) conserve the later name als to amend the Code so that the terms “accepted” and “rejected” in over the earlier name or (2) reject the earlier name outright. However, Art. 14.13 and 56.3 would be replaced by “protected” and “suppressed” there is almost unanimous support from mycologists to remove this respectively, and furthermore that, in relation to Art. 14.13, conser- article from the Code, and let priority rule, whether or not the earlier vation specifically overrides “protection” and the lists of protected name is anamorph- or teleomorph-typified (May in IMA Fungus 6(2): names “remain open for revision”. It would be beneficial to have (43)–(44). 2015). A formal proposal to amend the Code to this affect examples clarifying the difference in practice between “conserved” has been published (Hawksworth, l.c. 2015) and it is highly likely and “protected” and “rejected” and “suppressed” under the current that Art. 57.2 will be deleted from Code as a result of deliberation wording and proposed wordings of the Code. during the Nomenclature Section at the Shenzhen IBC in 2017. In the interim, all cases that fall under Art. 57.2, whether involving a Comprehensive lists of names for protection list from a working group or individual proposals (or indeed where authors have made choices without realising that Art. 57.2 should be It is important to note that Art. 14.13 and 56.3 allow for not only invoked), will be dealt via the Miscellaneous Fungi WG who will lists arising from resolution of “one fungus : one name” issues, but present a consolidated list to the NCFung. in fact lists of any names or indeed all names of fungi (for non-lichen taxa). In the opinion of the NCFung, the potentially wide application Synthesis of “one fungus : one name” resolutions of lists is not well-understood by the mycological community, and implementation of the articles in this broad sense requires further It is important to note that the choices of names listed above as discussion and establishment of clear procedures. This report focuses being formally approved by the NCFung are a subset of numerous on “one fungus : one name” issues as it is important to stabilise names choices resulting from the move to “one fungus : one name”; being of pleomorphic fungi affected by the changes in Art. 59. Once all only those situations where formal action is required due to taking up working groups have reported or indicated that they have no matters a later name over an earlier name. Other choices are detailed in the for formal consideration in relation to “one fungus : one name” issues, publications of the working groups and indeed scattered throughout the NCFung will move on to consideration of any comprehensive lists recent mycological literature. It is the intention of the NCFung/ICTF intended for wholesale adoption under Art. 14.13. to compile all cases in an aggregate publication in due course.

Version of Record 499